Meymott v Meymott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1864 |
| Date | 21 June 1864 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 1211
ROLLS COURT
32 L. J. Ch. 218; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 426.
[445] meymott v. meymott. Nov. 20, 1862. [32 L. J. Ch. 218; 9 Jur. (N. S.) 426.] A partner drew out more than he was entitled to under the partnership articles. Held, that he was not liable to be charged with interest. In 1843 the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into partnership as solicitors for a term of twenty-one years. The partnership was regulated by a deed dated the 30th of September 1843, by which the partners were entitled to draw out of the business such sums "as should not, in the whole, exceed the amount of profits of the partnership business to which they would be respectively entitled : " provided, that neither party " should, at any time, draw out more than he would be presumptively entitled to at the time of drawing out the same, and not by anticipation or in advance." No provision was made by the deed for charging interest on moneys overdrawn. Iti 1860 a decree was made dissolving the partnership, and directing the usual partnership accounts to be taken. It was found, in taking the accounts, that the Defendant had, in every year, drawn out more than his share of profits, and that at the end of the partnership the sums overdrawn amounted to £2035. The cause came on for further consideration. Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Wickens, for the Plaintiff, argued that although the deed contained no provision for [446] charging interest, yet as the Defendant had drawn out more than he was entitled to, contrary to the express provision of the deed, he was chargeable with interest on such moneys as he had improperly withdrawn from the business, especially as it appeared that the partnership had been crippled, and had paid interest to clients and executors for moneys advanced by them to the firm. Mr. Eaggallay and Mr. W. Foster, for the Defendant, were stopped on this point. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I do not see how I can give interest; there is nothing to that effect in the partnership deed, and I must introduce something into it before I can do so. note.-As to interest on deficiency of capital, see Hill v. King, Vice-Chancellor Stuart, 9th December 1862, and Lord Chancellor, 29th January 1863.
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 498
ROLLS COURT
498 MEYMOTT V. MEYMOTT 33 BEAV. B90. [590] meymott v. meymott (No. 2). June 9, 21, 1864. The scale of charges allowed by the General Order in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooke v Benbow
...of the Appellant, there was no fraud or concealment, aad in the absence of agreement interest cannot be charged ; Meymott v. Meymoti (31 Beav. 445). Lastly, as to the 201, a partner cannot, in the absence of agreement to that effect, claim interest on capital brought in by him; Hill v. King......
-
Graves v Davies
...Grant v. GrantENR 34 Beav. 625. Thompson v. PercivalENR 5 B. & Ad. 925. Lord Trimleston v. HamilUNK 1 Ball & B. 377. Meymott v. MeymottENR 31 Beav. 445. Rose v. RoseENR John. 653. Crosskill v. BowerENR 32 Beav. 92. Thompson v. PercivalENR 5 B. & Ad. 925. Lord Clancarty v. LatoucheUNK 1 Ball......